Asylum Seekers: Dying to be Australian

At this current moment, I am sitting in my two roomed unit at the back of my mother’s house, consuming a glass of wine, surfing the net, and writing. It is safe to say that I have it pretty easy. Never have I had to worry about the constant threat of war. Never have I had to think about the impact of terror on my home. I just go about my daily business, knowing of these things going on in the world around me, but not really giving them a second thought. They have never affected me directly, so why should I?

Everyday, thousands of people world wide, are faced with these threats right on their doorstep. So desperate are they to leave their home countries, they will sell their homes, cars, and all their belongings to board a ship with several hundred other people, bound for a country they know very little about. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the subject of this article is the topic that has had the nation’s chins’ wagging for the past fortnight: asylum seekers. In the past few weeks, you have no doubt heard and seen the on going debates regarding the boat load of people which were intercepted just off the Indonesian coast. It has become one of the most disputed and discussed news stories in current affairs.

The controversy is centred on one question: Should we allow the asylum seekers entry into Australia, or not? Most people debate that we have let many other refugees into the country before, why not this time? What most people fail to realise, is that there is a fundamental difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees have permission to seek protection in developed western countries, such as Australia. They have been approved by the UN to enter such countries and live there until either granted permanent residency, or sent home. Asylum seekers have not been granted with the same privileges as refugees. This means they are arriving illegally into western countries to escape the peril of their homelands. The Sri Lankan peoples anchored off the Indonesian coast are illegal immigrants. They do not have permission from either Australia, or the UN, to enter the country.

Although, undoubtedly, I can sympathise that these people are desperate to flee their war-torn country, I shall play devil’s advocate. The question here, is not about whether or not these people should be allowed the enter Australia, the question is; where do we draw the line? Theoretically: We let them in. Then what? What happens when the next boat load of internally displaced people land on our shores, seeking sanctuary? We will have to let them in. We can not let one boat load in, and keep five other boat loads out. But we already let in an unusually high number of immigrants, with statistics showing that almost one in four of Australia’s 21 million people, were born overseas. Even from last year, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of asylum seekers pleading the Australian government for protection. According to the ABC show Hungary Beast, there have been 1767 asylum seekers intercepted in our waters, this year alone. This figure is an increase of 1606 from the same time last year. Members of the government are all pointing fingers, but our fearless leader, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is said to be the cause of the dramatic rise. Apparently, Mr. Rudd has reformed many of Australia's laws regarding boarder protection.

Boarder protection is not the matter of importance when discussing asylum seekers: we need to look at the bigger picture here. If the Australian government wants to decrease the number of refugees and asylum seekers flocking to Australia, then they need to consider the reasons these people are leaving their home lands in the first place. Currently in the world, there are an estimated 11.8 million refugees. This number does not include the asylum seekers, or, internally displaced people. The total figure as calculated by the UNCHR (United Nations Commission on Human Rights), is said to be more than 31.7 million people globally. This amount of people is staggering. These people are so desperate to leave their war-torn countries; they will risk the lives of themselves and their families, to do so.

Personally, I’m on the fence here. On the one hand, I want to let these poor, defenceless people in. If they go back to Sri Lanka, they will surely be killed. But they are also dying off our coast – staging a hunger strike in hopes that the government will allow them to enter Australian waters. On the other hand, we can not send the wrong message to other asylum seekers. Australian refugee camps are already back-logged to the extent that internally displaced people have to wait up to 17 years to become an assimilated member of Australian society. Palming these people off to Indonesia is also wrong. Australia needs to deal with this, but how, I do not know. In the end, it is a no win situation. All I can say is that Australia has both the resources, and the space to accommodate these people. Although, some members of the public would argue that rather than boosting the population by accommodating asylum seekers, Prime Minister Rudd should use government funding to decrease the instance of poverty and homelessness amongst those who are already Australian citizens. I feel a little sorry for K. Rudd – no matter his decision, it is likely to backfire on him. It is certainly a difficult decision to make.

Regardless of his decision, we need to be aware of the reasons these people are leaving. I do not pretend to know much about politics, but Australia will gladly run to the aid of America to fight a useless, and hopeless war. Why then, can we not extend our hand to a stricken country in need? Instead of sacrificing our men and women in vain, should they not be sent to fight for a cause worth fighting for? - The freedom of a struggling nation.
E.

For more information visit:
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/8-bit-immigration
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home
http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm
To see more thoughts and comments go to:
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/boat-people-%E2%80%93-your-thoughts

Next blog: John Safran’s ‘Race Relations’